MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116820886 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2004.1303197

Experimental studies of scalability in clustered web systems

2004· article· en· W2116820886 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim Haddad, Gregory Butler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityTestbedServerThe InternetWeb serviceWeb serverApplication serverBenchmark (surveying)Distributed computingWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. As the Internet is becoming more robust with the addition of new services such as audio and video streaming, e-commerce, and news casting, the traditional Web server architecture is unable to keep up with the increasing demands and requisites of such new services. This situation has created a need for secure, reliable, highly available, and scalable Web servers that rely on clustering technologies to be able to meet the growth in the user base and offered services. Our work is concerned with scalability and performance of clustered Web systems based on open technologies. We study the scalability of clustered Web servers and HTTP traffic distribution methods through an experimental testbed and present the results of a series of experiments we conducted to benchmark the performance and scalability of a clustered Web system. We describe the prototyped target cluster and its components; the benchmarking methodology, metrics, and test scenarios; and the performance and scalability test results. The results demonstrate nonlinear scalability. We use these results to better understand scalability and performance issues in clustered systems. In future work, we aim to design and build linearly scalable Web server platforms within the concept of next generation Internet server.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207